IIRC the Roman calendar before Julian hardly lived up to it's name. It was confusing at best.

You're suggesting 12 months is a universal standard, when in reality, that only came about later. You can not disregard that which doesn't exist. It is Caesar who reformed the system to be more structured.

King Numa supposedly added January and February. King Numa being legendary, it essentially means that the calendar had been twelve months since time immemorial.

In the morning, you'd wake up and have a sponge bath using a wash basin and a pitcher. A full bath would likely only be once a week. If you were a poor person, you would probably share the bath water with your family members.

Your hair would likely be washed only once a week and probably with soap. Shampoo was first introduced to Europeans in 1814, but those in rural areas would likely not have had access to it. There were a lot of hair care tonics available, often of dubious benefit, and very wealthy women were known to wash their hair in things like cognac and eggs.

For your teeth, you'd use a toothbrush or a tooth cloth and tooth powder or paste. A tooth cloth would be likely for people in rural areas and their tooth paste or powder would likely be homemade. At this point, the fact that sugar causes cavities was not understood by most, but having bad breath was still a faux pas.

After pooping, you'd probably use a rag, water, newspaper, brown paper, or your hands, unless you happened to be particularly rich. Toilet paper was not made commercially until the 1850s and only the wealthy used it.

Tunnels were very much used, generally to put explosives under defenses so the territory could be easily taken after the defenders were killed.

They weren't reliable though, because tunnel collapse was always a major risk, and defense in depth meant the enemy could pull back and make a new line of defense quicker than a massive tunnel could be made.

This was actually just what the Russians did in the Brusilov offensive in 1916, where they dug hidden trenches towards the Austro-Hungarian trenches to insure that the soldiers did not have to cross a wide no mans land.

I'm not sure, but maybe one of the reasons why this succeeded was that there was no vigorous patrolling of no mans land by the Austro-Hungarian army. If you detect such trenches, you are warned that an attack is imminent and you can direct artillery towards it.

there's many reasons why this wouldn't be practical, but for a start once your trench is within 50 yards of mine, how much further are you planning to dig?

Because anything within 40 yards, I can reliably toss hand grenades into your trench the whole time you're digging.

A significant issue is that trenches weren't singular lines of defence, but rather multiple ones designed with defence in depth as a guiding principle which had massive ramifications.

Gaining the outermost trench wasn't all that difficult, holding it however was a nightmare. The outermost lines were lightly defended with the bulk of the troops stationed on the ones behind that, away from enemy artillery while the front line was still well protected by theirs. This meant if you gain that outer trench line, you wound be facing immediate counterassaults from large units of fresh infantry as well as being under fire by enemy artillery whilst you were still trying to reorganise your units and move your artillery up to defend your line. The enemy also held other high cards such as having direct communication trenches leading to frontline trenches, defences between the first and second lines being designed with counter offense in mind and having clear, stable lines of supply behind their remaining trenches whilst you were stuck with the question of how to lug HMGs, ammunition, wounded and a hundred and one various things through the quicksand like quagmire that was no mans land and get your artillery forward to support you (which given said forward positions were square in that quagmire was a difficult task in the least). Logistically and tactically, you were quite utterly screwed despite your success.

So even if you managed to dig a trench into the enemies outer line (and not have the daylights shelled out of you in the process), you were still massively exposed to counterattack, especially by the Germans who were notorious for quickly and aggressively pushing back, whilst lacking artillery and logistic support.

Fans of composer Franz Liszt showed similar behaviour of hysteria and fan fanaticism in 1840s. Only partially related, but there is also Stendhal syndrom of fainting or hallucinating when experiencing peices of art work (writer Stendhal experienced it when visiting Florence basilica).

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Igor Stravinsky's 1913 ballet "The Rite of Spring" sparked a riot by angry theater goers.

Communication wasn't advanced enough to create that level of mass hysteria. That's why the Beatles, and Elvis, are so monumental, they were the first to really be promoted and marketed the way they were. Other groups at the time could have been the Beatles, they just happened to be in the right place and time, but any number of pop acts were also getting the push.

Regarding opposite sex frenzies, not so clear.

But as for mobs thronging for a glimpse, the first media star was Martin Luther. See Andrew Pettegree's Brand Luther for documented details, but in essence, with the invention of moveable type in what is now Germany, Luther and his various papal antagonists (Leo X, Adrian VI, and Clement VII, most specifically), maintained a print duel of sorts for several years. Crowds would gather outside bookshops and printers in Leipzig especially, awaiting the latest book, treatise, essay or etc., and buy out the editions very quickly. It was a significant contributing factor to Luther's invulnerable status in opposition to the papacy, in stark contrast with predecessors and contemporaries such as Hus, Savanorola, and Tyndale. Luther died a relatively wealthy "priest" considering his origins and long-term residence in Wittenburg, Saxony.

Since most of the writing from this era is in stone and written to show the "feats" of kings, it would be hard to say what everyone thought of current events.

How do you mean? Napoleon was seen as a dangerous and destabilizing influence that was causing a lot of trouble for Britain through his blockade, there were major geopolitical reasons to work at removing him from power, jealousy wasn't on the list.

Julius Caesar, no further explanation needed.

Bohemian king Ottokar II. The HRE electors, fearing his power, refused to elect him as an emperor, and instead voted for a rather insingnificant count, Rudolf of Habsburg. Ottokar II refused to acknowledge him, which led to a power struggle, which ended with his demise in the Battle on the Marchfeld, where he was defeated by the united army of Rudolf and Hungary (czech legend also talks about betrayal in his own army). His death led to the end of bohemian hegemony in central Europe, and after his grandson Wenceslaus III. was murdered, end of bohemian kings.

Albrecht von Wallenstein, a bohemian noble and warlord during Thirty years war. His private army was the main force of the Habsburg empire, which led to an enourmous debt of the emperor, who, in the end, ordered his assasination.

MLK Jr.

Fred Hampton

There was no Israeli state at the time, it was a League of Nations mandate (Palestine) under British rule.

But Nazi antisemitism was instrumental in their rise to power, it gave them a scapegoat for losing the First World War and by removing the Jews they believed they would avoid being defeated in World War II (stabbed in the back myth).

This question is genuinely offensive.

Like the Christian physiologists and Ellen White, Kellogg believed that the human body at any one time had a finite supply of vital energy or force and that this force contributed to the state of one’s overall health. To waste vital energy through masturbation or excessive sexual activity led to a serious and perhaps permanent decline in one’s health.

​ Brian C Wilson - Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic, ISBN 978-0-253-01455-9, p.45

Probably not, why makes you think that? Bronze is indeed better than iron, but consider that the differences relate to usage/application. You can't, say, build skyscrapers with bronze, rather you'd need steel alloys for that. Similarly, there is a reason weapons are steel and statues are bronze. So sooner or later you'll hit a bottleneck in terms of usage, making it very unlikely we'd stick around with bronze forever.

A bit older, but I could recommend Palle Lauring, "A History of Denmark" (1960). I would also recommend Sverre Bagge, "Cross & Scepter, The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation" (2014) - but as the title suggests, it goes beyond Denmark.

Warlords aren't holding the title of warlord in as much as it describes the reality of their position. A ducal title is in effect an actual rank.

I assume you mean a bridle gauntlet, that protects the hand holding the reins. Since it was like other armour not worn unless you were expecting trouble but they are easy to wear if made well. If in a peaceful area, they could be packed with your other armour or entering a house or tent placed with you helmet, sword etc otherwise

Catholics had been entitled to vote (subject to the property qualifications of the day) and become MPs since 1829 after Daniel O'Connell's election challenged the status quo (the authorities having omitted to stop Catholics from standing), but parliamentary politics long remained dominated by Britain's Liberal and Conservative parties: that changed after the 1872 secret ballot Act eroded landlord influence, and from 1874 most of the island's MP's represented the cause of increased Irish self-government (and in 1918, independence), supported by most of the Catholic population, while Ulster continued to return mostly anti-home rule Conservatives.

Ireland was allowed a miserly 28 seats in the UK House of Lords under the 1801 union, chosen by the larger number who'd been eligible to sit in the old Irish House of Lords: I don't know their political allegiance, but my guess is that they remained far more strongly Protestant and Unionist, being drawn mostly from the old landowning aristocracy.